http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/12/02/pickton_021202 Lawyers and others, where do you come down on this? To give a bit of background, the media in Canada is banned from publishing information from preliminary hearings because not all of it will be admissible at trial and if it is released to the general public it could bias potential jurors. This is of special concern in high profile cases. This case is likely to become the most high profile case in Canadian history. There is speculation that this guy may have killed as many as 50 women or more, and even some speculation that he may be the Green River killer in Washington State. The international media is beginning to pick up on this story and publish details on the internet. If the jury pool becomes contaminated to the point where an unbiased jury can’t be found, Pickton would be released, because he could not receive a fair trial. One lawyer representing U.S. TV networks said his clients, “would black out reports that broke the ban, but banned material might still be made public. ‘The desire of my clients, I believe, is to inform American viewers of matters of public interest to Americans.’” My opinion is that the foreign journalists (not just Americans, there was a revealing article in a South African online newspaper too) should have enough respect for our laws not publish such information. Doing so threatens the case against possibly one of the worst serial killers in history. Because foreign media is not respectful of our laws, I support closing the hearing. Freedom of the press has its limits, especially when it threatens the freedom of the general public. Does anybody have another point of view?
Chalk up another vote for close the hearing. I believe in the right of the press to print anything they can (legally) get their grubby little hands on. I also believe their are certain things they shouldn't legally have access too.
Yeah, this situation is pretty clear cut. I guess this is more of a comment on the state of the media. Anything for a story. This is another of those cases, IMO, where short term thinking ends up leading to long term damage. I’m sure the networks are being seduced by the fact that this will be a very sensational story, but in the long run their actions lower their reputation and increase cynicism about the media in general.
Once you make it a secret, the other half of the reading public would want the juicy details. The media is this way because there's a greater demand for trash journalism...
